postgres-xc-general Mailing List for Postgres-XC

Hi Koichi,
I have a dba job on Oracle, PostgreSQL and ... later this year SQLServer.
I have some interest about distributed computing and databases like
Cassandra, MogoDB, HBase, ...
Regards,

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...>wrote:

> Even juust ideas/proposals are very helpful.   I'd like to learn more
> about your background.
>
> Regards;
> ---
> Koichi
>
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:14:37 +0100
> Magorn <ma...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Running nodes while some of others don't work makes sense only for
> > > read only transaction.   Update transaction in such situation will end
> > > up with inconsistent database state.   This is basically why XC does
> > > not allow such situation.
> > >
> > > Please understand that node removal, which will be an issue beyond
> > > V1.0, should be done in consistent state, that is, all the node should
> > > be healthy at the removal operation.   If any of them fails, we need
> > > backup to fail over such nodes by streaming replication or other
> > > means.
> > >
> > > This is what we are assuming.
> > >
> > > I welcome any other ideas and proposals of features.   If it comes
> > > with a patch, this will accelerate the development.
> > >
> > > Regards;
> > > ----------
> > > Koichi Suzuki
> > >
> > >
> > Hi,
> > Thank's all for your answers.
> > I understand your point of view and the postgres-xc situation.
> > Sorry, but i can help you to write some patch ;) my C is not "fluent" but
> > i'll continue to follow the evolution of postgress-xc.
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Magorn
>



-- 
Magorn

Even juust ideas/proposals are very helpful.   I'd like to learn more about your background.

Regards;
---
Koichi

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:14:37 +0100
Magorn <ma...@gm...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Running nodes while some of others don't work makes sense only for
> > read only transaction.   Update transaction in such situation will end
> > up with inconsistent database state.   This is basically why XC does
> > not allow such situation.
> >
> > Please understand that node removal, which will be an issue beyond
> > V1.0, should be done in consistent state, that is, all the node should
> > be healthy at the removal operation.   If any of them fails, we need
> > backup to fail over such nodes by streaming replication or other
> > means.
> >
> > This is what we are assuming.
> >
> > I welcome any other ideas and proposals of features.   If it comes
> > with a patch, this will accelerate the development.
> >
> > Regards;
> > ----------
> > Koichi Suzuki
> >
> >
> Hi,
> Thank's all for your answers.
> I understand your point of view and the postgres-xc situation.
> Sorry, but i can help you to write some patch ;) my C is not "fluent" but
> i'll continue to follow the evolution of postgress-xc.
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Magorn